Read the BE for a better world made through the blood toil & tears of great leaders, great people, & great companies working in harmony for the betterment of our Country, our People, our Planet, and for the benefit of all humanity through the Grace of God.

And Charlie did this with a passion that is unusual for the Chinese people who are reserved in all actions of their lives, for fear of the surveillance state and of their slave masters, the all powerful Chinese Communist party overlords…

Yet Charlie was seemingly oblivious to all that, and he preached with such fervor and in such an unusual fashion, that he was called by everyone — the new Genghis…

Charlie became the Genghis of Ghengdu. A larger than life figure towering amongst his contemporaries and his comrades.

Of course as in all such stories, the man we call Genghis, much like his namesake Ghengis Han, was a dimunitive person. Yet a person with abundant energy, and with plenty of vigor to go along and with some really really, big dreams…

As for Charlie himself — he was feeling pretty small having come from his one horse and two cows red clay village in the distant mountainsides, he saw the big city as his new home where his dreams were to surely come true, but he contrasted his small stature to that of his fellow people and found his size wanting…

But where he excelled in size, in stamina, and in persuasion above all else — was in his teachings about Jesus where he was seen as an enlightened speaker as anyone else alive today or long dead.

Because one of Charlie’s extra large dreams, was to find meaning in his life, and beyond. And apparently that’s what happened when he found Jesus Christ on his way to the big city.

And once he found the meaning of his life — he was so happy that he chose to turn on others to Jesus, and to make it a game and see if he could turn-on to Jesus, as many errant and slave people as he could find in this lifetimes.

And this is what Charlie did — always fishing for people, not amongst the poor and forgotten, but amongst the powerful and wealthy, and certainly amongst the most hardened party members, the devoted atheists, and the solid dialectic materialists, and especially amongst the evil doers of his newly adopted city.

And poor Charlie found plenty of them indeed, at least amongst the leaders of the ruling Communist People’s Party in this capital city of Southwest China, named Ghengdu city.

And for whatever reason they listened to him speaking in his tilted accent, and being a country bumpkin always entertained them, so they cut him some slack as people often do towards the simpletons.

Because Charlie had come to Jesus late in life at about the same time that he chose to travel to this vast metropolis of ten million people — having been born in a small village of less than three dozen souls, in a family of hard scrapers, tilling the earth and planting seeds for growth at the edges of the Sichuan plateau — he had all the fixings of the previous century’s village people, with the scruffy dress and head cap, along with the tire-soled shoes, and the peasant flat head…

And because he was truly a son of the black earth of this province’s rich organic soil that throughout millennia of agriculture – had been so depleted that only few things could still grow there — the officials listen to him attentively and cut him some slack for his indiscretion in speaking about this foreign “Ferenghi” God, that nobody had ever heard of…

But Charlie persisted and he became annoying to those people in power in this place of agriculture, where they grew one thing and one thing only, in a vast monoculture of growing and harvesting red peppers.

Because it was pepper that made this area of Sichuan rich in exports of this most desirable of spices…

And since this is the province where the famously tiny, yet spicy-hot & strong Sichuan peppers are born, same as Charlie, whose real name was indeed Genghis — a Mongolian name that he changed, as soon as he came to the big city to follow his dreams.

Much like the hot chili peppers from Sichuan — Charlie was hot and spicy.

He was spicy in the good sense that a great dreamer can be when he seeks to realize his dreams in a small time.

Yet Charlie, whose affable nature and small stature, belied the potency of his spirit, always asked if you had time for another cup of tea to speak and learn from you English or whatever you had to teach him.

Another cup of tea…

That was how Charlie stole your time, opened up your spirit, and entered into your body — unobserved, just like the local chili pepper, that somehow slips in your body unseen & unobserved, even though you took care to remove all the red bits from your food, still the little pungent hot pepper must somehow have sweetly and serepticiously slipped in…

Charlie like the hot Schechuan peppers, under the subterfuge of hearing and perhaps even learning what you had to teach him — he would take hold of your senses in a long held internally pleasant yet searing heat, and hold you hostage to that state of being for quite a while after you had your “food.”

That afterglow emanating from you belly is the Sichuan chili pepper heat that steams up your stomach and gut — long after you’ve ingested this so called Demons’ pepper, and a long time after you have felt and dealt with the initial onslaught of excruciating heat to the senses. A heat caused by that T-Rex overcoming Sichuan peppers that sear your mouth, close your throat, swimming tears onto your eyes, cause smoke to come out of your ears, and as the heat goes down … it shuts your throat tighter than a strangler’s noose, before it comes to expand uncomfortably into your belly seeing an explosive exit through your anus, while gaining speed coursing your small and large intestine…

So tight does your body feel after that pepper gets inside of you and hits your “bottom” reaching all of your extremities and filling them up with heat — that you have to take some drastic action lest the fever overtakes you.

So you’ve got to change things a bit, fan yourself, and drink some cool milk — just to cool down a bit, and this is the exercise that Charlie would always put me through just to see me savoring our conversation but not the food, all the while suffering through it, just to be with him and talk till my ears overheated and I couldn’t hear not more.

Old Charlie the joker, took far too much pleasure in torturing me with super-hot-chilly-pepper richly infused Schechuan food in a failed attempt to get me used to that belly burning variety of ethnic food, that some people try for fun, but I am unable to stomach or even to keep-it down — and that is what’s the most memorable thing to me about his work with people. He persisted.

And often times he succeeded to have people try and eventually keep deep down the gospel and the loving message of our loving Lord, and that’s why, for all the souls that he touched, and he managed to ignite the torch of Jesus Christ within — he was a pronounced a true life Saver.

Yours,

Dr Churchill

PS:

And perhaps that is why he will sorely be missed now that the Communist party hard liners who choose to exterminate all the Christian missionaries — especially those that hold the home churches where people find God and Grace — have gotten hold of him and dispensed with his life amidst awful tortures and privations.

Am quite certain that Charlie — the incredible Genghis of Ghengdu, has earned his spot in paradise at the Elysian fields next to his heavenly father, no doubt.

Sadly that is a daily occurrence in China where apostolic missionaries of Love, like Charlie, the Gengis of Gengdhu, suddenly go missing, and their home churches demolished, their family disappeared, and their small children become the wards of the State.

Of course this inhuman communist state, gets its revenge, in “red meat” as they call it, when the pounds of flesh that represent the human organs, are harvested in China, by the State as state sanctioned revenge against the dissidents.

So as far as we know Charlie’s children were entered into the shady criminal state orphanages where they become unwitting, unwilling, and forced organ “donors,” as they await their time to return to their heavenly host, to be reunited with their earthly father the Genghis of Ghengdu.

The menu of human organs harvested illegally from unwilling folks in China has grown to epidemic proportions and we must seriously boycott that medical convenience trade because it harms all of us, and because that “Red Meat” is harvested illegally from young Christians, from prisoners of consciousness, from political prisoners, and from all kinds of Chinese martyrs who stand against the red tide of nazism and nihilism the communist party of China represents…

And as this article on the rather circumspect scientific and thoroughly research verified and vetted article inside the NATURE magazine alludes to, not just about the obvious illegal and vastly immoral organ harvesting but about the publishing of the scientific research and results from such eminently rather widespread practices of organ harvesting in China :

Startling China organ claims raise alarm about transplant research

Researchers hope the conclusions of a people’s tribunal will pressure journals to reject papers that might include data from unethical transplants.

There once was a veterinarian who had been called to examine a ten-year-old Irish Wolfhound named Belker, and this story is told from this person’s point of view…

The dog’s owners, Ron, his wife Lisa, and their little boy Shane, were all very attached to Belker, and they were hoping for a miracle.

I (Veterinarian) examined Belker and found he was dying of cancer. I told the family that we couldn’t do anything for Belker, and offered to perform the euthanasia procedure for the old dog in their home.

As we made arrangements, Ron and Lisa told me they thought it would be good for six-year-old Shane to observe the procedure. They felt as though Shane might learn something from the experience.

The next day, I felt the familiar catch in my throat as Belker‘s family surrounded him. Shane seemed so calm, petting the old dog for the last time, that I wondered if he understood what was going on. Within a few minutes, Belker slipped peacefully away.

The little boy seemed to accept Belker’s transition without any difficulty or confusion. We sat together for a while after Belker’s Death, wondering aloud about the sad fact that dogs’ lives are shorter than human lives. Shane, who had been listening quietly, piped up, ”I know why.”

Startled, we all turned to him. What came out of his mouth next stunned me. I’d never heard a more comforting explanation. It has changed the way I try and live.

He said, ”People are born so that they can learn how to live a good life — like loving everybody all the time and being nice, right?” The six-year-old continued,

”Well, dogs already know how to do that, so they don’t have to stay for as long as we do.”

Live simply.
Love generously.
Care deeply.
Speak kindly.

Remember, if a dog was the teacher you would learn things like:

• When your loved ones come home, always run to greet them.
• Never pass up the opportunity to go for a joyride.
• Allow the experience of fresh air and the wind in your face to be pure Ecstasy.
• Take naps.
• Stretch before rising.
• Run, romp, and play daily.
• Thrive on attention and let people touch you.
• Avoid biting when a simple growl will do.
• On warm days, stop to lie on your back on the grass.
• On hot days, drink lots of water and lie under a shady tree.
• When you’re happy, dance around and wag your entire body.
• Delight in the simple joy of a long walk.
• Be faithful.
• Never pretend to be something you’re not.
• If what you want lies buried, dig until you find it.
• When someone is having a bad day, be silent, sit close by, and nuzzle them gently.

Like this:

Former Chinese Premier Li Peng has died in the government compound in Beijing long time after tens of thousands of students, workers, & pro-Democracy and pro-Liberty protesters were killed by his orders back in 1989.

Li Peng the butcher of Beijing outlived his hundreds of thousands of victims by a whole three decades — enough time to suffer from his memories until he died yesterday.

Li Peng had held many senior government positions in Communist China in the 1970s, 1980s, and in the 1990s. He died on Monday evening from an unspecified illness, the official Xinhua news agency reported. Xinhua described Li Peng as a “time-tested and loyal communist soldier, and an outstanding proletarian revolutionist, statesman and leader of the Party and the state.”

However, it was Li Peng’s role in the ultimate decision to send soldiers to clear Beijing’s Tiananmen Square on June 4th and 5th of 1989, that was “the putsch” that took the power away from then ailing leader Deng Xiao Ping, and thus came for Li Peng to make the final call, and that is why Li Peng is rightly now called “The Butcher of Beijing” by the people, who know the truth in all things.

History also has judged that Li Peng deserved this name because back in May 1989, as the pro-democracy protests gained strength in Tiananmen Square, Li angrily told students at a meeting that “The situation will not develop as you wish and expect.”

A day later, he told the public in a televised address that he was declaring martial law.

After 30 Years Of Amnesia, Remembering A Forgotten Tiananmen square jives with Li’s declaration that paved the way for troops to descend upon the peaceful protesters amongst those who died to defend Liberty and Democracy. Tens of thousands of people died, and although the government has never released a death toll and suppresses any discussion of the bloody incident — the mass graves of Tiananmen are legendary in their size and depth.

Today, the level of Chinese digital and physical censorship is so high, that the image of a man standing in front of a tank – one of the most iconic photographs ever taken – is completely blocked and totally unfamiliar to the people of China.

A solitary figure in a white shirt and black trousers clutches a bag and stands in front of a column of halted tanks, a cluster of street lights floating to one side like balloons. The man’s shoulders are rounded, almost passive in front of the four tanks whose gun barrels are raised as if in an ironic salute.

Thirty years on from the violent crushing of pro-democracy protests in Tiananmen Square, the tank man’s identity remains unknown, and it is most certain that he is not alive long after the iconic photo was taken. But the photograph that captured his solitary moment of dissent in June 1989 remains one of the most memorable images of the last century, known universally as Tank Man.

Every Tank Man photo has a secret quality because the Man looks more vulnerable, and fragile since he is a common man asking a simple question to the soldiers:

“Why are you doing this?”

My feeling is that this guy had no concern for his safety. He was fed up and just didn’t care. He just wanted answers…

On the 30th anniversary of the protests, we recall that the picture of the Tank Man was taken, on the 5th of June 1989, and that the man was later shot dead by the Chinese secret police…

Tanks massed in Tiananmen Square in June 1989 as the Chinese authorities under orders from Premier Li Peng aligned their forces in order to crush the pro-Liberty students’ demonstrations in a bloody crackdown.

At a time of huge political turmoil in 1989 all over the world, with the Soviet Union’s collapse and the Berlin wall toppling, the unknown Chinese man’s face-off with the tanks came after weeks of demonstrations calling for democratic reforms that had rocked the capital of China Beijing, and with protesters on hunger strikes starting to occupy Tiananmen Square on the 13th of May 1989, asking politely for Liberty and a small measure of Democracy.

Within days they were more than a million strong, all of them milling inside the vast Square at the center of Beijing.

Upon the orders of Premier Li Peng, the People’s Liberation Army was sent in on the 4th of June with a whole armored division of soldiers and tanks, who opened fire indiscriminately on the protesters, thus killing and injuring many tens of thousands amongst the young people of Beijing occupying the Tiananmen square’s center.

In a public diary entry about that time, Premier Li Peng, maintained that he “firmly stood on the right side of the line with Comrade Deng Xiaoping.” And of course, China’s Communist Party leadership doubled down on its support behind Li Peng’s martial law approach to the 1989 Tiananmen Democracy protests in its official state obituary on Tuesday.

It said that at that time, Li Peng “took decisive measures to stop the unrest and quell the counter-revolutionary riots.” His decisions, the official obituary stated, “stabilized the domestic situation and played an important role in this major struggle concerning the future of the party and the country.”

“Bearing Witness Is Really All We Have” is a folio of the collective memories of covering the Tiananmen Square military attacks, murderous rage, and the burial of the protesters in mass unmarked graves — is the bloody aftermath and the only truthful account of what happened…

The Chinese Communist government’s staunch support for the deadly crackdown comes during tense times for China’s leadership, as mass protests in semi-autonomous Hong Kong against Beijing continue to intensify, and as the Uigur peoples’ Muslim majority is rounded up, and concentrated in the reeducation camps all over northern China to remain there and be “recivilized” for years to come…

Still, the glowing celebration of Premier Li Peng’s legacy within mainland China suggests Beijing isn’t willing to back down in 2019, against Chinese minorities, or the students, or the workers, or even the Hong Kong pro-Democracy & pro-Liberty protesters…

They give stern warning to all that a bloody crackdown is as much imminent today as it was back then on the early days of that bloody June of 1989, as presided over by the “Butcher of Beijing.”

What can you say?

Communists are communists, and a few tens of thousands of dead protesters for Freedom & Democracy — are simply a statistic in their minds, and an anomaly in their hearts.

No Heart.

No Conscience.

No Remorse, of any kind.

Just another bloody communist… who is now dead, thirty years after his many thousands of victims died in pain back in Tiananmen square on that bloody night of June 4th of 1989…

Cheers for the fallen soldiers of Liberty who died not in vain in Tiananmen square.

May your memory never be erased.

R.I.P.

Yours,

Dr Churchill

PS:

While Li Peng will be remembered internationally for the brutal and bloody legacy of the military tanks ordered to unleash their might by running over people with bloody and gummed up with human gristle tracks, lording it over Tiananmen Square — in China his economic strategy will likely rise to the fore, and he will be revered and remembered as pious leader, for as long as the Communists stay in power.

Because it was during his time as premier, that the economy grew considerably, the average lower class living standards improved, and the role of private businesses dramatically expanded — he is given kudos for achievements other than killing hundreds of thousands of people…

Indeed, Li implemented major economic reform, such as creating special economic zones and transforming a largely rural country into one of the biggest economies in the world.

Still, Li never received the historical acclaim and prestige that other leaders of his era, such as economic reformer and Li’s successor, Zhu Rongji, attained.

Li also strongly advocated for placing the Muslim minorities into the concentration & reeducation camps and he also pushed for the construction of the massive Three Gorges Dam, a giant infrastructure project to build a powerful hydroelectric dam across the Yangtze River. It displaced more than 1.4 million people and continues to be marred by environmental and construction issues.

Like this:

Britain has chosen Boris Johnson to become the country’s next prime minister, replacing the feckless Theresa May who favored an accommodation with the German Angela Merkel leader of the EU, instead of carrying on the Brexit favored and voted upon by the citizens of the United Kingdom…

Boris Johnson the new PM, had this to say as he took office: “Today at this pivotal moment in our history, we again have to reconcile two sets of instincts, two noble sets of instincts, between the deep desire for friendship and free trade and mutual support, security and defense, between Britain and our European partners, and the simultaneous desire, equally deep and heartfelt, for democratic self-government in this country. We are getting ready to come out on 31 October. Come what may. Do or die. Come what may.”

The new Prime Minister Mr Boris Johnson, won the leadership because of Theresa May’s repeated failure to follow through on the Brexit electoral demand of the UK’s constituency and instead tried to fool the people into staying into the German led Union of the EU.

However, the new PM Boris Johnson assured all of us, that he will leave the EU by the current Oct 31 deadline, whether or not a deal is reached.

Like this:

The current state of the US’s & UK’s “Special Relationship” is based on the term which was coined by Winston Churchill during the early stages of the Second World War, and it is an apt reminder of why Britain needs to “crash out” of the European Union today in a pel-mel fashion, by diving out headfirst…

Still back in the days after Winston Churchill’s greatness over the decades following the second world war, most US presidents were circumspect about assigning an elevated status to the special relationship with Britain, until today’s President who has warmed up to the idea swiftly.

Because during the decades of the Cold War — although the US and particularly the establishment Washington valued the United Kingdom as a vital and distinctive ally, especially for its pivotal role in the European theatre, as well as in the ASEAN and in NATO, the Atlantic alliance — they did not trust the “junior partner” very much because they were afraid that England was overrun with Cambridge Communists who were eagerly giving away all the secrets of the West to the Russians because of an immature idealism and a sense of entitlement and privilege.

Yet it was the close connection between the US and the UK that can be traced to June 1940, when the amazing defeat of France by Nazi Germany transformed the geopolitical map of the world, and pushed Churchill to gravitate towards his natural allies Stalin and Roosevelt.

And it was the continuing Churchillian British defiance against the mighty German NAZIs, that proved essential, in order to prevent a total Nazi and Axis powers global dominance, because my grandfather Winston Churchill knew that defeating Hitler would require both the Russian and the American participation in the war — and he sought to be the sentinel guarding Thermopylae with his 300K British troops rescued from Dunkirk, until such time that the Americans and the Russians would see fit to come to his aid.

And it was the capitulation of France and the unification of Europe under Adolf Hitler that caused the French collaborationist Petain government to break diplomatic relations with England — that caused Britain to crash out of Europe and finally decide to chart it’s own course with the only remaining natural ally the United States of America (Children of a Common Mother) and the countries of the British Commonwealth, dominions and empire, right along with the reluctant ally, Russia and her Soviet empire.

So, however the historically heroic Churchill and the Russian people suffered for the first two years of the war — it was President Franklin Roosevelt who in his weakened physical and mental state, was siting on the sidelines for the first two whole years of the war, waiting to see who would be declared the winner of this awful conflict, so he can make a separate peace with the Victor.

FDR as an opportunistic Democrat, did not mind the least bit to make an accommodation, if not an alliance with Herr Hitler, because he was fully convinced that most all of the American people were appeasers, who did not want to fight once again over Europe. And that was his terrible miscalculation, as seen by the independent Americans who rushed to the aid of Churchill as individual citizens paying their own way to cross the Atlantic and join the conflict as volunteers and patriots for the cause of the Ligtht, Liberty and Democracy, for this world.

Some of them had even been fighting alongside the Republican freedom fighters of Spain a few years prior to the Second World War — where the Germans perfected their technique of destroying civilians cities through brutal air bombing attacks against innocents in order to break the back of the resistance to their bloody aims and to the dark brutality of tyranny they exposed in order to install their evil empire as overlords of the whole of Europe and the rest off the World.

It was especially then that it became apparent to Churchill and to the British people that crashing headfirst out of Europe was pivotal to their survival — in the emerging age of German super-airpower, at a time when the U.S. was still focused on manufacturing tractors and automobiles, and could not match Germany’s aggressive armaments production tactics that were honed throughout the German NAZI conquest of Europe’s all manufacturing powers, and that of the Japanese juggernaut that had been unleashed and it was toppling state after state like dominoes falling all over Asia, and increasingly looking as the war will be ending with the Axis powers dominating all of Europe and Asia.

To his credit though, FDR however, also believed that, after the obscenity of the First world war, it was necessary to set out fresh principles in order to forge a more decent and stable world after the first world war — the “war to end all wars” and that is why he claimed that he dithered and prevaricated for two whole years, until the Japanese forced his hand, by destroying the American Pacific fleet in Pearl Harbor, and effectively taking over the whole of the Pacific in one clean fell swoop.

Perhaps history has been too kind to FDR, and perhaps that is why, in the drafting of the Atlantic Charter, it was Roosevelt, even more than Churchill who affirmed the basic precepts of a rules-based liberal & democratic world order, including the right of self-determination of all peoples, the principle of no territorial changes by force, the reduction of trade barriers, the advancement of social welfare and the promotion of international disarmament — and all other future rights and benefits, as a lengthy magical wish list for the future of the World, after the second world war should have ended…

A tall order indeed, but after the fall of Pearl Harbor, it was that Atlantic Charter, which became the documentary basis of the “Declaration of the United Nations” in January 1942, when the UN was first convened in spirit and paper alone…”

And although the Allied victory in 1945 owed much to the Russian & Soviet Red Armies — because in the four years between France’s collapse and D-Day, it was the Russian Soviet forces that inflicted about 90% of the German army’s battle casualties and also suffered upwards of 90% attrition rates amongst the dead of the war — still the heart of the alliance was the US&UK allied powers, fighting together and forging a brotherly relationship.

And after the fateful first two years of the war during which time Britain stood alone — it was that convergence of the US & UK armed forces, that came to define the war effort as just one example of the close historical relationship between the two major powers, where the sharing of planning, armaments, defensive positions, spy-craft product, exchange of “signals intelligence” and the institution of the Combined Chiefs of Staff were the most notable examples.

And as this relationship was rooted in a shared heritage of classical political liberalism, going back to the English Parliament’s struggle against monarchical power and against the threat of invasions by tyrannical European powers in the 17th and 18th centuries — it also provided a backdrop for the future foundational stones of the “New World Order” edifice.

Still, the growth of American financial wherewithal coupled with American ingenuity and Yankee innovation of productions methods and engineering, created a significant armaments dominance as the war progressed, became the dominant factor of contention because Russia was bleeding its population suffering over 90% of the war dead, and Britain was similarly hemoraging as it was described by Josip Stalin in his conversation with Churchill and Roosevelt during the Teheran conference of the “Big Three” where he said that the war was being fought with American money, British strategy, and Russian men.

Backbiting naturally ensues amongst allies, and especially emanates form newspaper men, who in 1944 wrote in the British yellow press tabloids, funny comments about the “Yanks” being “oversexed, overpaid and over here,” thus prompting the American trope, that the Brits were “undersexed, underpaid and under Eisenhower.”

And amidst all that nonsense, is where the idea of a “Special Relationship” came in, with Churchill first amongst all British leaders feeling the time ripe for reconciliation amongst Allies, while believing, or at the very least hoping, that the junior partner (himself) could manage the senior partner, because of his vast diplomatic and strategic mind, and the fact of their shared language, cultural values, and that of the judo-christian religious concerns that most of the population of the two countries embraced.

“It must be our purpose to make use of American power for purposes we regard as good” is how another British Foreign Office memorandum put it, during the crazy days at war’s peak, back in 1944.

What’s more, being relatively new to “World Power,” the US would surely need the help, advice and guidance, of Great Britain, that at any rate had been a seasoned global power veteran over the few prior centuries…

Tellingly, a Foreign Office memorandum stated in 1944, that “It must be our purpose to make use of American power for purposes we regard as good, and if we go about our business in the right way, we can help steer this great unwieldy barge, the United States of America, into the right harbor.”

In 1943, Harold Macmillan, a future British prime minister, reached for a classical analogy to describe Allied Force Headquarters in Algiers. “We … are Greeks in this American empire,” he told a colleague languidly. “You will find the Americans much as the Greeks found the Romans — great big, vulgar, bustling people, more vigorous than we are, and also more idle, with more unspoiled virtues but also more corrupt.”

“We must run AFHQ as the Greeks ran the operations of the Emperor Claudius.”

A combination of American brawn and British brains—that was the conceit behind London’s conception of the special relationship.

In Washington, things naturally looked a bit different, not least because of the legacy of 1776, but because in all American folk memory and all of America’s textbooks, Britain, one might say, was the original “evil empire” — the brutal overlord, from which the Americans had escaped thanks to the combined efforts of the Founders, the Minutemen, the clergy and the much hoped for Divine Providence. Therefore, any deep cooperation with the British carried a rather steep price and a malodorous reputation…

Remember that when the US had entered the First World War in 1917, President Woodrow Wilson had demanded that it be called an “associated” rather than an “allied” power, in order to show that it did not share the imperialist values of Britain and France.

Similarly during the Second World War, one of Roosevelt’s primary strategic aims was to end all vestiges of European colonialism.

So in 1942, FDR’s insistence that Great Britain should concede independence to India, provoked a private threat of resignation from my grandfather Winston Churchill who saw the survival of the Empire linked to that of Victory and also saw it as paramount for the survival of Great Britain as well.

This was prophetic as we can see later, when during the Suez canal crisis of 1956, President Dwight Eisenhower pilloried Britain at the UN because he regarded the joint British and French invasion of Egypt to recover control of the Suez Canal as a grotesque reversion to the unacceptable 19th century empire habit of gunboat diplomacy…

Suez canal aside, it was in the Cold War and during the global struggle to confront and contain the spread of malignant communism, that British power became of the greatest value to NATO and the secret asset to the Americans.

But attitudes in Washington shift at a glacial speed, and as the US set out to confront communism world-wide, the new policy came into effect after the Westminster College of Missouri speech, where Winston Churchill spoke about “The Sinews Of Peace” and this is where my grandfather rather eloquently explained that in this new global struggle, British power was as great an asset for America as it had once been, during the ravages of the Second World War.

Because although Britain was teetering in retreat from her global Empire, she still had an industrial output in the early 1950s equal to that of France and West Germany combined, and its armed forces numbered nearly a million, trailing only the Soviet Union and the U.S. In 1952, Britain followed the superpowers in testing an atomic bomb, thereby becoming the world’s third nuclear-armed state. It also retained bases around the world at key strategic points, from Gibraltar to Singapore, which enhanced the projection of U.S. power.

Most U.S. policy makers still avoided the term “special relationship.” In 1950, Secretary of State Dean Acheson ordered all copies of a memo that used the phrase to be burned. He did not contest “the genuineness of the special relationship” but feared that, “in the hands of troublemakers,” the memo “could stir no end of a hullabaloo, both domestic and international.”

By 1962, Acheson believed that Britain was just about “played out” as a global power. His warning that it had “lost an empire and not yet found a role” touched a raw nerve in London, but Macmillan’s government had already decided to do as Acheson was urging and make the “turn” to Europe. Yet it did so in order to bolster the special relationship. The British cabinet concluded that “the Common Market, if left to develop alone under French leadership, would grow into a separate political force in Europe” and eventually might “exercise greater influence” on the U.S. than the British were able to do, which could undermine Britain’s position as “the bridge between Europe and North America.”

Do the U.S. and the U.K. still need one another in the age of Trump and Brexit? Join the conversation below.

In the event, the U.K. was kept out of the European Common Market all through the 1960s by French President Charles de Gaulle, who was still bitter at les Anglo-Saxons for marginalizing him during World War II. Even after the U.K. finally joined the European Community in 1973, its leaders continued to see their country as a bridge between America and Europe. Their tactic was to manage disagreement with U.S. policies discreetly, in contrast with the Gaullist practice of public denunciation. Britain’s axiom, one might say, was “Never say ‘no,’ say ‘yes, but’”—with the “yes” stated loyally in public and the caveats uttered behind closed doors.

Few U.K. leaders were more Americophile than Margaret Thatcher. Her rapport with President Ronald Reagan became legendary, though she could be caustic about him in private. She supported his firmness toward the old Soviet leadership but encouraged his opening up to Mikhail Gorbachev (a man with whom she famously decided she could “do business”). Even when furious about Reagan’s apparent readiness to sacrifice the principles of Western nuclear deterrence during the Reykjavik summit of October 1986, she responded with classic “closed doors” diplomacy. She invited herself to Camp David and “hand-bagged” the president into a public reiteration of NATO’s official policy.

President George W. Bush (right) and British Prime Minister Tony Blair at the White House, January 31, 2003. PHOTO: BROOKS KRAFT/CORBIS/GETTY IMAGES
Yet nothing Mrs. Thatcher said in private or public could stop the president from unilaterally sending U.S. troops into Grenada in 1983, even though this was a Commonwealth country and Queen Elizabeth was its head of state. And after 9/11, Prime Minister Tony Blair supported President George W. Bush over the invasion of Iraq, partly in the hope of bringing peace and democracy to the Middle East, but got little for his pains except a tarnished reputation.

Such episodes have prompted criticism that the special relationship is just a fig-leaf for the continued waning of British power. Yet the U.S.-U.K. relationship does remain distinctive in several respects. The sharing of military intelligence, dating back to World War II, has evolved into the so-called “Five Eyes” network of global surveillance among the U.S., U.K., Canada, Australia and New Zealand.

No American ally other than the U.K. has been allowed the same access to U.S. nuclear technology and delivery systems.
The nuclear relationship is also truly special. No other American ally has been allowed the same access to U.S. nuclear technology and delivery systems, in the form of first Polaris and then Trident ballistic missiles. More amorphous, but equally unique, is the habit of consultation: British and American politicians, officials and members of the armed forces at all levels find it natural to talk with their opposite numbers. The common language helps, as does the historic commonality of worldviews and political values.

In consequence, the special relationship has proved a linchpin of the NATO alliance. The U.K., along with France, is the U.S.’s only European ally with a significant “out-of-area” military capability—as seen in the recent reinforcement of British and French forces in Syria, to allow the Trump administration to pull back U.S. troops. And the British are regarded as far more reliable allies than the French. As for the European Community and eventually the European Union, Britain’s membership and its trans-Atlantic bridging role have been supported by every U.S. administration from John F. Kennedy to Barack Obama.

Which brings us back to Mr. Trump and Mr. Darroch. Today, the cohesion of the West matters as much as ever in the face of a newly assertive Russia and China. Under fourth-term President Vladimir Putin, Russia’s annexation of Crimea in 2014 and its continued interference in the domestic politics of Western democracies threaten the stability of the postwar order. Mr. Putin has recently dismissed liberalism as “obsolete.” In Beijing, President-for-life Xi Jinping has embarked on a grandiose strategy to take control of the South China Sea and to expand China’s global reach under the “one belt, one road” initiative.

In 2019, the U.S. remains the world’s leading military and economic power, but its hegemony is under threat from these challengers. Arguably it needs allies as much today as it did during the Cold War. (And yes, those allies definitely need to do more to sustain the alliance.) Yet President Trump has been erratic in his attitude to NATO, hostile toward the European Union and positively jubilant about Brexit—none of which is conducive to the solidarity of the West.

The Darroch affair might seem like a storm in a British teacup. But it also matters to the U.S. Mr. Trump has made no secret of wanting a Brexiteer as British ambassador. And Boris Johnson, the man likely to become Britain’s prime minister next week, pointedly refused to support Mr. Darroch in a recent TV debate. Mr. Johnson’s critics have suggested that he is anxious to appease the president in the hope of a favorable post-Brexit trade deal. Mr. Johnson says that he will “leave” Europe by Oct. 31, “do or die.”

Yours,
Dr Churchill

PS:

Indeed, historically, the postwar special relationship has been most effective when Britain has had strong links with Europe as well as the U.S.

If anything now, Brexit will strengthen the special relationship, and thus the entire Western World will be strengthened at will.

A bientot then.

Let’s get out of the Germany’s Third Reich 2.0 already.

Crash out of it if necessary, walk out of it if need be, or simply waltz off into the brilliant English landscape of a sunny day.

Like this:

Today, as we are approaching once again the 4th of July Independence Day of 2019, I’ve been thinking grand thoughts about our Constitutional Republic, and it’s long term fate as it was put by Benjamin Franklin at the close of the Constitutional Convention of 1787, when queried as he left Independence Hall on the final day of deliberation — in the notes of Dr James McHenry, one of Maryland’s delegates to the Convention — when he was asked what kind of newfangled government they had decided to bring forth, and he answered: “It is a Republic, madam, but only if You Can Keep It.”

Dr Franklin’s perspective and response on the inauguration of a Constitutional Republic in these United States of America: “A Republic, If You Can Keep It…” shows Benjamin Franklin to be the evergreen optimist who at the age of 81, gave what was for him the best speech of his life…

And while today we marvel at fireworks on the Fourth of July, marking our Independence — we tend to forget the extraordinary accomplishment of our Founding Fathers, and their own reaction to the US Constitution when it was presented to them for their signatures, because most of them were quite underwhelmed and considerably less enthusiastic, than the hot dog eating, beer swilling and fireworks rocketing Americans of today.

Even Benjamin Franklin, the optimist, gave what was for him a remarkably restrained assessment in his final speech before the Constitutional Convention by reasoning that: “When you assemble a number of men to have the advantage of their joint wisdom, you inevitably assemble with those men, all their prejudices, their passions, their errors of opinion, their local interests, and their selfish views.”

Old Ben thought it impossible, to expect a “perfect production” from such a gathering, but he believed that the Constitution they had just drafted, “with all its faults,” was better than any alternative that was likely to emerge.

Nearly all of the delegates harbored objections, but persuaded by Franklin’s logic, they put aside their misgivings and affixed their signatures to it. Their over-riding concern was the tendency in nearly all parts of the young country toward disorder and disintegration. Americans had used the doctrine of popular sovereignty — “democracy” — as the rationale for their successful rebellion against English authority in 1776. But they had not yet worked out fully the question that has plagued all nations aspiring to democratic government ever since: how to implement principles of popular majority rule while at the same time preserving stable governments that protect the rights and liberties of all citizens.

Few believed that a new federal constitution alone would be sufficient to create a unified nation out of a collection of independent republics spread out over a vast physical space, extraordinarily diverse in their economic interests, regional loyalties, and ethnic and religious attachments. And there would be new signs of disorder after 1787 that would remind Americans what an incomplete and unstable national structure they had created: settlers in western Pennsylvania rebelled in 1794 because of taxes on their locally distilled whiskey; in western North Carolina there were abortive attempts to create an independent republic of “Franklin” which would ally itself with Spain to insure its independence from the United States; there was continued conflict with Indians across the whole western frontier and increased fear of slave unrest, particularly when news of the slave-led revolution in Haiti reached American shores.

But as fragile as America’s federal edifice was at the time of the founding, there was much in the culture and environment that contributed to a national consensus and cohesion: a common language; a solid belief in the principles of English common law and constitutionalism; a widespread commitment (albeit in diverse forms) to the Protestant religion; a shared revolutionary experience; and, perhaps most important, an economic environment which promised most free, white Americans if not great wealth, at least an independent sufficiency.

The American statesmen who succeeded those of the founding generation served their country with a self-conscious sense that the challenges of maintaining a democratic union were every bit as great after 1787 as they were before. Some aspects of their nation-building program, especially their continuing toleration of slavery and genocidal policies toward American Indians — are fit objects of national shame, not honor.

But statesmen of succeeding generations — with Abraham Lincoln, the 14th President, foremost among them, would continue the quest for a “more perfect union.”

Such has been our success in building a powerful and cohesive democratic nation-state in post-Civil War America that most Americans today assume that principles of democracy and national harmony somehow naturally go hand-in-hand. But as we look around the rest of the world in the post-Soviet era, we find ample evidence that democratic revolutions do not inevitably lead to national harmony or universal justice. We see that the expression of the “popular will” can create a cacophony of discordant voices, leaving many baffled about the true meaning of majority rule. In far too many places around the world today, the expression of the “popular will” is nothing more than the unleashing of primordial forces of tribal and religious identity which further confound the goal of building stable and consensual governments.

As we look at the state of our federal union 232 years after the Founders completed their Constitutional Convention work, there is cause for satisfaction that we have avoided many of the plagues afflicting so many other societies, but this is hardly cause for complacency. To be sure, the US Constitution itself has not only survived the crises confronting it in the past, but in so doing, it has in itself become our nation’s most powerful symbol of unity — a far preferable alternative to a monarch or a national religion, the institutions on which most nations around the world have relied. Moreover, our Constitution is a stronger, better document than it was when it initially emerged from the Philadelphia Convention. Through the amendment process (in particular, through the 13th, 14th, 15th and 19th Amendments), it has become the protector of the rights of all the people, not just some of the people.

On the other hand, the challenges to national unity under our Constitution are, if anything, far greater than those confronting the infant nation in 1787. Although the new nation was a pluralistic one by the standards of the 18th century, the face of America in 1998 looks very different from the original: we are no longer a people united by a common language, religion or culture; and while our overall level of material prosperity is staggering by the standards of any age, the widening gulf between rich and poor is perhaps the most serious threat to a common definition of the “pursuit of happiness.”

The conditions that threaten to undermine our sense of nationhood, bound up in the debate over slavery and manifested in intense sectional conflict during the pre-Civil War era, are today both more complex and diffuse. Some of today’s conditions are part of the tragic legacy of slavery–a racial climate marked too often by mutual mistrust and misunderstanding and a condition of desperate poverty within our inner cities that has left many young people so alienated that any standard definition of citizenship becomes meaningless. More commonly, but in the long run perhaps just as alarming, tens of millions of Americans have been turned-off by the corrupting effects of money on the political system. Bombarded with negative advertising about their candidates, they express their feelings of alienation by staying home on election day.

If there is a lesson in all of this it is that our Constitution is neither a self-actuating nor a self-correcting document. It requires the constant attention and devotion of all citizens. There is a story, often told, that upon exiting the Constitutional Convention Benjamin Franklin was approached by a group of citizens asking what sort of government the delegates had created. His answer was: “A republic, if you can keep it.” The brevity of that response should not cause us to under-value its essential meaning: democratic republics are not merely founded upon the consent of the people, they are also absolutely dependent upon the active and informed involvement of the people for their continued good health.

And it is abundantly clear that in order to “Keep It” we need to regain that spirit of REASON and OPTIMISM, that Dr Franklin so abundantly shared. That is, if we want to have any hope of keeping our REPUBLIC, by rekindling a Western AngloSaxon Liberal Democratic rebirth. And it must be in the direction of Classical Liberalism, as applied in the Western Democracies of the best parts of our lives today, because going back to the past is never an option. We must look boldly to the future and hope for the best, as Old Ben always advised us to do.

This New Era has to be the era of classical liberalism that is based on the US Constitution, along with Natural law, infused and influenced by the particular biblical and common law traditions of the AngloAmerican nations, based on the “thought cannon” of all the multihued and multicolored individual leaders and commoners alike — who fought, spoke, toiled and even died, with force, about the outcome of political philosophy and patriotism, as they set their hopes on making our country Rational Again and guiding America on the path towards universal reason.

And it is pivotally important that the liberal western nomenclature has to be wrestled away from the hands of the freaks, and brought back to sanity. Classical liberalism, is a reasonable system of ideas for Governance, but first the use of the word “Liberal” has to forcefully extracted from the clutches of the word-thieving, doublespeak spewing crazy people, who seek to enslave once again, the masses of the “great unwashed.”

And because Classical Liberal Democracy is a fantastic idea of Independence and Liberty for our Republic, and it is contrary to all of the socialist leftist ideas that today’s so called democratic socialist, and all of the leftist liberal demonrats soil themselves with — we need to save these words from the loonies and their crazy ilk.

And because we are indeed in the midst of a Culture War, and we play with fire if we forget 1984, and the observations of George Orwell and Winston that the current and future Nazis, Fascists & Communists, will call themselves AntiFascists…

And that the illiberal and totalitarians, will call themselves liberals…

Double speak folks, is where the game rests.

And we need to be liberated from that soonest.

So if we wish to be truly liberated from the sinister use of our language to weaponize our words and definitions and to turn them against our sanity, and common sense reason — it is the drawing away from the flames of the current cultural conflagration.

Because we need to regain the strength of our own cultural relevancy and linguistic definitions before we go through with the recovery of Classical Liberalism as the great aspiration of our Free Societies, our Free nations, and our Free World.

Alongside of that, we can harvest the particular Anglo-American political and religious traditions that were the original source of the English-speaking nations’ cohesion and strength.

Even all the way from the time of the American Independence, and during our flesh eating Civil War, and all the way to the current wars, as well as before and during the Second World War — these classics liberal democratic traditions represented the touchstone of our strength so that we can keep our Republic alive and kicking.

But all that, was well before the current wholesale displacement of our Greco-Roman civilizing Judeo-Christian traditions, by the pseudo leftist fake liberalism.

On January 4, 1939, Franklin Delano Roosevelt gave the State of the Union address to an American nation that he believed, would soon be at war on an unprecedented scale, because FDR knew that America, Britain, and their allies would have to fight not only the Socialists of the Fascist, and Nazi (National Socialism) varieties and its imitators, but also the Soviet Communists as well. Yet even FDR struggled to define, what would the Western allies be fighting for, in the coming titanic struggle.

And perhaps only Winston Churchill fighting — all alone fighting a war to the death, for the first two years of the II World war — had fully understood and embraced this primeval conflict between Good & Evil, as his destiny, and his ultimate call-to-arms, in order to save the whole World from thousand years of Darkness & Totalitarianism.

Nobody else, except the simple people, the salt of the earth kind, the ones not in any positions of authority, the ones bereft of any wealth, the small shopkeepers, and daily market men, the women who rear the children and toil alongside the men who turn kids to adulthood…

Nobody else.

Yet, the Christian fearing, English speaking and AngloSaxon people — all thought this way too…

And all those offshoots of the Christian AngloSaxon civilization all around the world, along with the peoples of the Commonwealth of nations — also sensed that they had to fight alongside my grandfather Winston Churchill, if they were to maintain not just their nationhood, but also their civilization and their long nurtured civility.

So why is it that nobody else amongst the World’s leaders, stood alongside my grandfather during his darkest hours?

Could they not see the dawn of tyranny?

Why?

Finally Franklin Roosevelt, emerged in his glory and started fully acting as the true President of the United States — a Christian Nation, and thus slowly came around to recognizing this existential threat that the National Socialists and their Totalitarian Axis of Evil, presented for all Western Democracies, and especially for America. He finally saw this, under the influence of Churchill’s bombastic tirades and overlong communiques, but in the beginning FDR was an appeaser, as all the Democrats and indeed most of Americans were.

Only the American fighters of the Lincoln brigade who sought to curtail fascism in Spain during the doomed Republican fight there against the combined forces of Franco, Hitler, and Mussolini, alongside those of Stalin — all seeking to snuff out any notion of Liberty amongst the People of the Iberian nations, while rehearsing and training their mighty armies to be unleashed for their combined destruction of Liberty and Democracy throughout Europe and the rest of the World. That is why Hitler and Stalin had a secret agreement to carve up all the nations in their periphery, starting from the still weeping Poland, and the Baltic states, along the rest of the ancient states and nations of central and eastern Europe…

The Lincoln brigade members and the American flyers who joined England in her desperate hours, are to be commended for being the early pioneers and the early fighters for freedom and democracy, and as they are largely forgotten today — may the soil that covers them, be light upon them.

Still even after the Spanish Republic’s total and complete annihilation and destruction at the hands of the Nazis and the fascists — it was impossible for FDR to grasp all these, mainly because in Roosevelt’s eyes, the war was unwindable for the Europeans and he sought to make a deal with the Nazis, because he understood that if Hitler could be turned against the Russian bear — then he could have two birds on his plate, without firing a single bullet.

But under the unceasing probing, informing and beneficial influence of Winston Churchill — finally even Franklin Delano Roosevelt, started turning around, as he also started thinking that the war, if it would be fought — it would revolve around three things that are vital for the interests of the Western Democracies, and of America, not necessarily in that order…

FDR slowly came around but in the beginning he was an appeaser of Hitler and Mussolini, as all the American Democrats were at that time…

That was mainly because in Roosevelt’s eyes, the war was unwindable for the Europeans and he sought to make a deal with the Nazis, because he understood that if Hitler could be turned against the Russian bear — then he could have two birds on his plate without firing a single bullet.

But under the unceasing influence of Churchill, the FDR started turning around, and also started thinking that the war, if it would be fought — it would revolve around three things that are vital for the interests of the Democrats and not of America necessarily…

As he put it: “Events abroad directly challenge three institutions indispensable to Americans, now as always. The first is religion. It is the source of the other two — democracy and international good faith.”

As you can clearly see, FDR, nowhere does he mention LIBERTY and FREE WILL, or NATIONAL DETERMINATION for the subject nations wasting under the NAZI rule.

According to this view, both Liberty and the freedoms that are the inheritance of Americans as individuals, alongside the freedom of America as an independent nation among other free Peoples, have their source in one place — which is the Christian inheritance of Free Will, and Self Determination of all Peoples. This is the true inheritance of this nation and of the whole of the Free Western World.

Yet, FDR supposed that the Nazis and the Marxists knew this as well as he did, and that is why they were seeking to overthrow not only democracy and liberty, but its Christian source of power as well.

Roosevelt said, that “This was their aim, to achieve an ordering of society which relegates religion, democracy, and good faith among nations to the background, … but the United States rejects such an ordering and retains its ancient faith.”

FDR’s framing of what was at stake made the impending conflict not only a war about freedom, although it was surely that. It was also a war about religion. In fact, in the same address, Roosevelt described the conflict as one between the “God-fearing democracies” and their enemies—those nations that did not fear God, the biblical Amalek. It is striking how far this framing of the war differs from what is taught in most schools and universities today. It is a rare instructor in history or politics who describes the struggle against Nazism and Marxism as one fought between “God-fearing democracy” and its enemies. It is usually said that the war was fought between “liberal democracy” and its enemies.

But Roosevelt seems not to have been aware that leftist liberalism was the cause in whose name hundreds of thousands of Americans were about to give their lives. In fact, the words “liberal” and “liberalism” appear nowhere in the eight pages of his address. This shift isn’t just about word-choice. The fact is that America, Britain, and other Western countries have undergone a dramatic change in self-understanding in the wake of the trauma of the Second World War. Somehow, a war fought to defend God-fearing democracy inadvertently ended up destroying the religious foundations of the victorious Western nations.

Over the course of a few generations, the God-fearing democracies came to see themselves as liberal democracies, and liberalism replaced Christianity as the fundamental framework within which these nations lived and conducted their affairs. We can see the beginning of this change immediately after the Second World War in the U.S. Supreme Court’s determination in 1947, that state governments may no longer support and encourage a particular religion or any religion.

Technically, this decision is deduced from the First Amendment of the Constitution as applied through the Fourteenth, but of course, the Fourteenth amendment (1868) had already been on the books for 79 years without anyone recognizing that support and encouragement for religion by the states was a violation of individual’s right to due process. What had changed in the interim was not the letter of the law, but the narrative framework through which the Justices of the Supreme Court, as representatives of elite opinion, understood the relationship between Christian tradition and the American nation. That there has been such a change is obvious from the fact that by the time one reaches Everson v Board of Education (1947), Supreme Court Justice Hugo Black, feels constrained to provide a new story of the American founding broadly hostile to government encouragement of religion. Among other things he writes: “It is not inappropriate briefly to review the background and environment of the period in which that constitutional language was fashioned and adopted.”

He continued thus: “A large proportion of the early settlers of this country came here from Europe to escape the bondage of laws which compelled them to support and attend government favored churches. The centuries immediately before and contemporaneous with the colonization of America had been filled with turmoil, civil strife, and persecutions, generated in large part by established sects determined to maintain their absolute political and religious supremacy. With the power of government supporting them, at various times and places, Catholics had persecuted Protestants, Protestants had persecuted Catholics, Protestant sects had persecuted other Protestant sects, Catholics of one shade of belief had persecuted Catholics of another shade of belief, and all of these had from time to time persecuted Jews. In efforts to force loyalty to whatever religious group happened to be on top and in league with the government of a particular time and place, men and women had been fined, cast in jail, cruelly tortured, and killed.”

In Black’s opinion rendering, “Religion is no longer the source of American democracy and independence” as it had been in FDR’s State of the Union address eight years earlier.

And if anything, religion is now portrayed as a danger and a threat to democratic freedoms, the very form of the American Constitution having been the result of the excesses of religion that drove the first Europeans to settle in America. It is here that we find the transition from a God-fearing democracy to a liberal democracy: One in which religion is perceived as being so great a threat that the federal government must act to ensure that no child in the country is taught religion in any publicly supported school.

Within less than two decades, the Supreme Court had banned not only religious instruction but prayer and devotional reading from the Bible in schools, placing the great majority of the nation’s children in the care of an “idiotic-safe-space” scrubbed clean of any reference to the place of Christianity and Judaism in laying the foundations of the American republic.

Instead of arising out of longstanding Christian tradition, America was reimagined as a product of Enlightenment rationalism, as seen when during the high school years and during all the college years the young people of this country spend inside those leftist holding pens — especially in the so called mandatory education K-12, they hear not a word about the Bible or the common law, but they are peripherally introduced to the pivotal and cardinal philosophies of Hobbes, Locke, and Rousseau, that are presented as the Holy Gospel of liberal education.

Yet it is inside these public schools, these colleges, and these universities, that we are provided with the public space in which the American mind is molded, into a morosed vessel of misinformation.

And so what is seen as legitimate in these institutions of learning — it is what ends up being the legitimate discourse in the public life of the country if only a generation later…

Yet, we all know that a nation that honors its religious traditions in the schools will end up honoring traditions in the broader public sphere. Whereas a nation that heaps dishonor on its religious traditions by banning them from the schools will end up dishonoring its traditions in the broader public sphere as America consistently does today.

Today, the meme “Why Rationalism Does Not, Cannot, and Will Not Work” is a commonplace and awfully tired trope, used by all, and especially amongst erstwhile liberal as well as conservative mass media commentators, and the journalistic talking heads, who constantly harp away, by saying that sadly, the demolition of traditional concepts and norms is being driven by Democrats-Democrats, Leftists, Marxists, neo-Marxists, cultural Marxists, or just the confused Socialist Left, and its brethren the Democratic Socialists — residing inside all four (Yes Four) sectors of our Government. [Notably in the big four equally strong centers of power and foundational sectors of our government and society — I have included the Media, alongside the Executive, the Legislative, and the Judiciary.]

Because this travesty of thought although especially prevalent inside our schools, our colleges, and our universities — it still fully blossoms in the place where it finds its apotheosis, inside the Mass Media Entertainment and Brain Washing Machine Centers masquerading as today’s Journalism.

And that is truly the saddest thing going on today in our culture — the overtaking of all of our journalism, by socialist & marxist entertainers, pretending to “high fallutin” ideals of fairness and impartiality as those bygone men and women of yore who were members of the classical journalistic ethical breed.
Today, all the pseudo-journos, lead with their feelings and not with the truth — and still are foolish enough to preach Marxist principles to the American public, thinking that people will swallow such drivel easily.

And because of that, they are an easy target for criticism because they say explicitly that their aim is to critique the concepts employed by the existing Constitutional & Democratic Republic American power structures, with the express and stated aim of undermining them.

But the Marxists, and the Socialists, and the neo-Marxists’ agendas, are not sufficient as an explanation of what we’re seeing taking place in our culture wars today, because even in the universities, where the Marxists are strongest, they remain a tiny minority. Further, in government and among the public, they have not, until very recently, been anything more than a curiosity, and could not by themselves have affected the sweeping civilizational changes that have been under way for several decades now…

Think, for instance, of the total and complete elimination of any references to God, to the Bible, and towards prayer, from the American schools. Think of the public embrace of new sexual norms, the easy divorce and all out support for even late term abortions. Or think about the collapse of Western nations’ will to pay back their debts, balance their budgets, or strengthen their borders and thus regulate immigration and unfettered & catastrophic waves of migration. In these cases, as in many others, it wasn’t the Marxist minority that determined the course of events, but the Uniparty system that destroyed the U.S. and the UK with their acquiescence and complicity in letting these matters of such grave importance for our AngloSaxon Western Civilization nations, slip away…

Indeed, these things happened because they were supported by a broad liberal public, and were promoted by its elected representatives in both the Democratic and Republican parties in America, and on both the center-left and center-right in Europe. The key to understanding our present condition, then, is this: If liberals had been willing and able to mount a vigorous defense of inherited political and moral norms against the conceptual revolutions proposed by the neo-Marxist left, these challenges would have been defeated easily.

But liberalism has proved itself either unwilling or unable to successfully defend almost any inherited political ideals or norms once a focused attack on them has been under way for twenty or thirty years. Why is liberal political thought systematically incapable of defending inherited traditions? Virtually all of liberal thought today— including that of “social liberals” such as John Rawls; and that of “classical liberals” or “libertarians” such as Robert Nozick — is based on Enlightenment rationalist political theories that were purposely designed to be independent of all inherited political traditions. In fact, the central claim of Enlightenment political theories was that they were based on “reason alone,” which meant that they could, in principle, be understood and agreed upon by anyone, regardless of the particular religious or national traditions in which they were raised. Reason alone was said to be all you needed to derive and wield ideas like individual freedom, equality, consent, and universal rights—the central ideas in the toolkit of contemporary leftist liberalism.

The trouble with these Enlightenment rationalist claims is that they aren’t actually true. In fact, individuals exercising “reason alone” do not come to any kind of stable consensus about anything. As the great English political theorist John Selden wrote already in the 17th century, reason alone is capable of coming to virtually any conclusion.

And this brings us to the uncertainty and inconsistency with which the free and unadorned application of reason has always been burdened…. No one of any education can be unaware that in ancient times even the masters and practitioners of right reason, i.e., the philosophers, took part in endless discussions about good and evil, and the boundaries that separated them, in which they were completely at odds with one another.

There was no one to put an end to these disputes.

The number of sectarian groups multiplied, and so many new doctrines sprouted up that even though the study of philosophy was based upon the most careful reasoning possible given the intelligence and talents of its practitioners, the number of its schools would easily have reached the apocryphal figure of 288, if every difference in doctrine had been formalized. … Thus people who have set about seeking the universal principles of living well have arrived at very different conclusions, among which everyone considers his own to be the best, and usually either condemns or criticizes everyone else’s. …

Hence both Zeno and Chrysippus, as well as the Persian Magi, considered relations with one’s mother and even with one’s daughter to be permitted, just as were relations with other men; and the philosopher Theodorus said the same about theft, sacrilege, and adultery. And yet the jurist Ulpian (who was not even a Christian) and others of the pagans said explicitly that these are crimes against nature; while Theodotus, Diagoras of Melos, and some other well-known writers completely undermined all the fear and respect that rein in humanity by claiming that the gods did not exist. Add to these Plato, the most divinely inspired of all philosophers, who believed that women should be held in common and people should be able to have sex with almost anyone they want; and the others who thought that all possessions should be shared as though the law required it.

Yet for us the modern practical philosophy of Madison and Jefferson informs our Republic’s best conversations, as is evidenced herewith:

“It will be of little avail to the people that the laws are made by men of their own choice, if the laws be so voluminous that they cannot be read, or so incoherent that they cannot be understood; if they be repealed or revised before they are promulgated, or undergo such incessant changes that no man who knows what the law is today can guess what it will be tomorrow.” –James Madison

Or here:

“Of the liberty of conscience in matters of religious faith, of speech and of the press; of the trial by jury in civil and criminal cases; of the benefit of the writ of habeas corpus; of the right to keep and bear arms… If these rights are well defined, and secured against encroachment, it is impossible that government should ever degenerate into tyranny.” –James Monroe

But in antiquity, these modern rationalists did not exist and instead we had the teachings of Archelaus, Aristippus and Carneades, according to which nothing at all that is just, depends upon nature; rather, what we call “just” is based in fact on written law, and on the preferences or interests of human beings…. And yet we hear everywhere that law (especially natural law) is right reason; and everyone agrees with this sentiment, even those who disagree fiercely about what “right reason” is. … We should therefore use with caution, and not be too quick to depend upon, the unfettered and simple application of analytical reason alone, which is often thought to be so unpredictable and unstable that what one person sees, particularly in this kind of investigation, as a very evident principle, or a conclusion which follows from a principle, will often seem to another person of equal intelligence to be obviously false and worthless, or at least inadmissible as truth.

This is just what happened all the time among those heroes of the discipline who used free and untrammeled reason to argue about the nature of good and evil, the shameful and the honorable, as everyone knows who is even slightly familiar with their writings.

This is why Tertullian says this about the philosophy of the gentiles, i.e. about “Using the kind of reason which they generally called “right” that it reserves nothing for divine authority, since it makes its own opinions into laws of nature. Considering the variety of philosophical schools and sects, you are not likely to find anything as unclear and contradictory as these “laws of nature.”” Tertullian’s words were published in 1640, but they might as well have been written today.

So for me it is best we go towards our own enlightened founders here as said thus: “Rightful liberty is unobstructed action according to our will within limits drawn around us by the equal rights of others. I do not add ‘within the limits of the law’ because law is often but the tyrant’s will, and always so when it violates the rights of the individual.” –Thomas Jefferson

Today, the enlightenment-inspired liberals insist that “reason alone,” exercised through the sole instrument of open debate in the universities and in the public sphere, will lead everyone to their preferred conclusions about politics and morals. The reality, however, is that the exercise of free human reasoning leads to Marxism or to a quasi-Darwinian “white identity politics” just as easily as it leads to social liberalism or libertarianism.

And tomorrow, it will lead somewhere else entirely, abandoning the results of today’s reasoning as relics of a bygone and benighted past. We can now understand the causes of the present trajectory of public life in the Western nations. Until the eve of the Second World War, these were still, in many respects, traditional societies.

True, these “God-fearing democracies” respected Enlightenment philosophy and liked the idea of “having to do your own thinking” (as FDR put it). But it was not “doing your own thinking” that had produced the basis for a stable nation. It was Protestant religious and political tradition that determined the fundamentals of the political order.

The power of the Enlightenment’s “critique” of all inherited tradition continued to be balanced and contained by the force of Christian tradition. Within two decades of the conclusion of the war, this balancing force had collapsed. In despair over its horrors, Americans and Europeans were now prepared to embrace Enlightenment, and to accept whatever political truths might be dictated by reason alone.

Indeed, the revolution unleashed in this way, did have certain positive consequences and some rather funny ones too.

Among these I would count the elimination of state-sanctioned racial segregation in the American South, and many other items could certainly be named.

But the new era of what Selden called “free and untrammeled reason” as the sole guide for our understanding of what is good and right has thrown us into a perpetual revolution that is devouring all inherited wisdom and common sense. As is now obvious to many, this revolution has no natural stopping point. If its course cannot be deflected, it will end with the destruction of the Western democracies and their replacement by a despotism sufficiently vicious to be able to put a stop to the revolution by force.

Yours,
Dr Churchill

PS:

In recent decades, American and European elites have devoted themselves to the project of rethinking society from scratch.

What were once linchpin concepts such as family and nation, man and woman, God and Scripture, the honorable and the sacred, have been found wanting and severely damaged, if not overthrown. The resulting void has been filled by new doctrines, until now mostly neo-Marxist or libertarian in character. But a racialist “white identity” politics in a Darwinian key is gathering momentum as well. All three of these approaches to political and moral questions are, in a sense, creatures of the Enlightenment, claiming to be founded on a universally accessible reason and to play by its rules. This is another way of saying that none of them have much regard for inherited tradition, seeing it as contributing little to our understanding of politics and morals.

Yet, because contemporary political doctrines claim to play by Enlightenment rules, conservatives seeking to stem the tide of the revolution have often felt that they would be on the strongest possible ground if they appealed to universal reason themselves: Catholic scholars, for example, have led the effort to develop an updated political theory based on natural law. Whereas Straussians, to cite another prominent school, have sought to elaborate the theory of Lockean natural right, fortifying it with the assertion that the American Declaration of Independence commits the United States to such a view as a kind of official ideology of the state. These efforts have generally been conducted by individuals who are personally sympathetic to political conservatism—that is, to the preservation of the inherited political and moral traditions of Western nations. And yet it is striking that these attempts to revive natural law and natural right defend a conservative political understanding that is itself created in the image of their opponents:

Namely, the rationalist school of Enlightenment political theory — Hobbes’ Leviathan, Locke’s Second Treatise, Rousseau’s Social Contract, Spinoza, Kant — insisted that it was speaking in the name of a universal reason that is supposed to be accessible to everyone, in all times and places, and to provide the one correct answer to all foundational political questions. In just the same way, present-day “conservative rationalists” insist that their own political thinking is the product of universal reason, accessible to all, and leading to the one true answer on political things. Missing from such conservative rationalism is any significant place for tradition — any reason to prefer political and moral concepts that have held good and done good for our ancestors and for us over centuries, if not thousands of years.

And although conservative rationalism can boast of certain impressive achievements, as a general matter it is fair to say that conservative rationalism has failed: It has not visibly retarded the progress of the revolution that has so damaged the most basic of inherited Jewish and Christian concepts.

But beyond this, by endorsing the methods and assumptions of Enlightenment rationalism, conservative rationalism has contributed something to the calamity, leaving the traditions that once upheld the political order in America and other Western countries — understood as the inherited customs of particular nations — largely without defenders. This is a decisive point, because traditions of ideas, regardless of their content, are never disembodied things that float free of the families, tribes and nations into which real human beings are born and in which they are educated. Our ideas, no matter how much we may develop and revise them or rebel against them in part, are still the product of the traditions we inherit, or adopt later in life, because conservative rationalists mistake their ideas for universal thoughts that can be accessed universally, they pay little attention to way in which the traditions of nations are formed and what it takes to strengthen them or even to maintain them. Their students are therefore largely unaware, for example, that it is not freedom, but honor and self-restraint that are primarily responsible for the solidity of national traditions.

Yet, we ought to know that without understanding and practice in these things, “conservative rationalists” cannot in fact conserve much of anything, and often end up taking part, on a daily basis, in the general undermining of the very things that they say they wish to conserve.

Conservative rationalism has led not to a flourishing of the conservative impulse in America, the UK, and other Western Greco-Roman civilization steeped in Judeo-Christian traditions nations — but rather to its extinction.

Therefore it is high time now to regain the Classical Liberalism of Winston Churchill, of Ronald Reagan, of Maggie Thatcher and of Jack Kemp — because they had it right in the first place.

A God fearing people living in Freedom and Dignity with Liberty and Rights for all is what the “City of Human Liberty, in the sunny uplands of Freedom, Law, and Democracy” is what I, and am sure most of you all, aspire to live in.

Yet in these days of Culture Wars, let thus remember that “The Harder the Conflict, the Greater the Triumph” –George Washington

So when Americans celebrate the 4th of July this week with hot dogs and fireworks, I would like to take a moment to look past the visual imagery and the smells of barbecue, in order to focus on what our founding fathers fought for in the Revolutionary War and in all the subsequent conflicts including Civil and Uncivil wars and even the culture wars of today:

They fought the hardest for Life, Liberty and for the Pursuit of Happiness, but also for taking the risks associated with these noble pursuits…

“Those that are willing to give up essential liberty in order to gain a little temporary safety — deserve neither liberty nor safety.” –Benjamin Franklin

Yet today, it seems that these inalienable rights, enshrined in the Bill of Rights, as they stem from our Constitution, are being eroded with each successive administration and with law making anti-constitutionalist judges and even with most Supreme Court decisions and rulings.

And it seems to me that with big government — if we aren’t already there, tyranny seems to be coming, closely followed by the Holy Inquisition…

So maybe, this Fourth of July as we stand at the crossroads as a Nation — we must decide if we will allow ourselves to be divided and conquered by tyranny or if we will come together and stand up for the principles of our Constitution.

Do we allow the Cultural Wars to overrun the eternal issues that make Life worth Living for any generation, such as the preservation of life, that of liberty and that of the pursuit of happiness?

Now, if you want to do something to further liberty, democracy, and the keeping of our Republic for the next generations in this country I highly recommend checking out the Lincoln Party here at http://www.LincolnParty.Net

LincolnParty.Net

Happy Fourth dude…

Now after reading all this — feel free to go light up some fires with your mental firecrackers, and help people see the Light.

Please do not be afraid to light up fires into the explosive brains of your friends and family…

George Orwell. the author of the prophetic book about totalitarianism, titled “1984” wrote his most prescient words to a friend, in a recently found personal letter that was sent on the 18th of May of the year 1944, in the middle of the Second World War, and almost five years before the publication of his pivotal book titled “1984” into which he was “looking” at the future of our World forty years forward, as he were expressing himself about the dystopia that seemed to be the future of the Western Democracies at the aftermath of the Totalitarian powers taking hold of every one country everywhere on this Earth of ours…

It is understood by all that since Orwell, had seen in his lifetime the awfully stifling totalitarianism, taking place in Spain, in NAZI Germany, and indeed in the whole of Hitler occupied Europe, and of course throughout the Soviet Union Republics & Russia, prompted Orwell to talk and write about this evil darkness overtaking the whole world.

Thus it came that George Orwell several years before the publication of “1984” but certainly while he was writing the drafts and coalescing the thoughts that are central to the book “1984” and while he was commenting on his daily radio show at the BBC — he wrote to a friend about the world’s totalitarian situation, and the creeping fascism that will surely engulf the Western Civilization.

Yet he wrote from the standpoint of a reporter, who has seen first hand the ravages brought to the people from the kind faced and mealy mouthed Socialists, who unleashed daily terror, under the name of Democrat, or Leftist or Liberal, or even of that very National Socialist, the hated NAZI party of Adolf Hitler. Orwell was not though an ordinary observer. Having suffered at the hands of those totalitarians and having the scars from the bullet that pierced his neck — he was the man who hated fascism in all its forms and garden varieties of the poison weed called Socialism.

And thus Orwell came to recognize the “wolf in sheep skin” as the crypto-fascism of today, the daily variety of fascism, that is easily found to be hiding in plain sight, under the cloth of niceness, compassion and government support, by the nanny-state, for the masses, so loved by the Leftists, who are recently christened as “Liberal & Progressives.”

And it is this fascist tendency that is beloved by today’s Intellectuals, and by the seemingly endless Democratic parties asking for more government controls of the everyday life of all the people.

And it is also the far more obvious and odious totalitarianism emanating from the wooden truncheons and the baseball bats of the brownshirts of the Democrats, and out of the muzzles of the guns of the progressive liberals’ and the US Democrat party military squads — the domestic terrorist Antifa organizations in America, and their counterparts in the UK, and all the rest of the violent wings of the Democratic party, who like the IRA that destroyed Ireland for over 50 years, have now come to embody the hate that destroys Western Democracies in our lifetime.

Yet George Orwell, presciently sensing, and fully seeing that which we seem to be experiencing today in the United Kingdom and in the United States of America — presaged the evils of today’s violent totalitarians, by describing their prevailing action plans and their “modus operandi” in the following prophetic statement that he made in this letter written in the Spring of 1944, well before the end of the Second World War — the bloodiest conflict in history of mankind — and five years before the book “1984” came onto being.

George wrote to his friend: “The progressive intellectuals are more totalitarian in outlook than the common people, because most of them are perfectly ready for dictatorial methods, secret police, systematic falsification of history etc, so long as they feel that it is a win on “our” side.
Being a “progressive” is so much nicer a word than being a “totalitarian” yet the intellectually progressives’ ideas are turning into a frightening set of dismal realities, such as the doublespeak of the Ministry of Truth, which alters reality by saying things such as, WAR IS PEACE, FREEDOM IS SLAVERY, IGNORANCE IS STRENGTH, and TOTALITARIANISM IS PROGRESS.”

Share this:

Like this:

D-DAY 75 YEARS ON… NEVER FORGET WHY WE ARE HERE TODAY… IT’S BECAUSE OF OUR HEROES !
Never have I forgetten
How I came to be here today
Because during D-Day in WWII
You risked your life… and for that
You are forever in my heart,
because we remember & will never forget.

The June 4th incident otherwise known as the Tiananmen Square massacre of the students in 1989 was the biggest revolution for Democracy China has ever known… and it resulted in massive death and persecution and the return to a tyrannical oligarchical Communist system of totalitarian one party ruthless rule.

The Tiananmen Square protests, commonly known in mainland China as the June Fourth Incident (Chinese: 六四事件, liùsì shìjiàn) or Six four, were worker & student-led demonstrations in Beijing in mid 1989 that was the popular national movement inspired by the Beijing protests during that period, sometimes called the ’89 Democracy Movement (Chinese: 八九民运, bājiǔ mínyùn).

The protests were forcibly suppressed after the government declared martial law and sent in the military to occupy central parts of Beijing. In what became known as the Tiananmen Square Massacre, troops with assault rifles and tanks fired at the demonstrators trying to block the military’s advance towards Tiananmen Square. Estimates of the death toll vary from several hundred thousands to as low as 26,000 with many more additional hundred of thousands of demonstrators wounded, arrested, exported to concentration camps and exiled internally for long periods of time.

Set off by the death of pro-reform Communist leader Hu Yaobang in April 1989, amid the backdrop of rapid economic development and social changes in post-Mao China, the protests reflected anxieties about the country’s future in the popular consciousness and among the political elite. The reforms of the 1980s had led to a nascent market economy which benefited some people but seriously disaffected others, and the one-party political system also faced a challenge of legitimacy. Common grievances at the time included inflation, corruption, limited preparedness of graduates for the new economy, and restrictions on political participation. The students called for democracy, greater accountability, freedom of the press, and freedom of speech, although they were highly disorganized and their goals varied.

The Tiananmen Square massacre of Democracy in 1989 China, still grips that nation in fear of truth, fear of liberty, and most importantly, fear of its people rising up and demanding their God given rights of Free Will and of the Free Disposition of Self.

The 1989 Tiananmen Square June 4th massacre was presaged by the “Tiananmen Square protests” colloquially known as the 1989 “Tiananmen Square massacre,” were a part of the Student Chinese democracy movement blossoming in 1989, as the spread of anti-communist revolutions of 1989 erupted at the end of the Cold War.

This trend along with the death of Hu Yaobang, whose economic reforms gave hope for the young students, caused them to rise up against the runaway inflation, against political corruption, nepotism, and because of their wish to represent themselves, as the third wave of democracy clashed with totalitarianism amongst the other anti-communist revolutions of 1989, that were taking place in all of the European countries that were previously enslaved by the Communist ideology, and by the Red Army all over the place and amongst the satellite nations of the old Soviet union and elsewhere.

Yet in China’s Beijing, the rebellious students had a few concrete goals, and demands, shy of any revolution. They had such simple demands, such as the end of corruption within the Communist Party, democratic reforms, freedom of the press, freedom of speech, freedom of association, etc, that it seemed like a sit-in at a University campus, seeking simple dialogue and understanding by their elders…

Their methods were all peaceful, and when they found out that they will not be heard — they started with some hunger strikes, a longer term sit-in, and they progressed with the “occupation” of the public spaces of the square.

Instead of a dialogue, the authorities issued proclamations pagans the students, that soon enough resulted in the enforcement of a state of martial law, that was declared by Premier Li Peng in Beijing, and was executed by provincial country bumpkin units who used violent armed force, in a bloody mayhem from the evening of 3rd of June 1989 (Martial Law was declared from 20 May 1989 – 10 January 1990, 7 months and 3 weeks) until pretty much whoever remained in the square amongst the demonstrators and the students, was pretty much dead and buried in the same square in makeshift mass graves.

Up to today… those graves remain undisturbed and unidentified, with military police supervising the Square 24/7/365 for the last three decades and counting.

The fate of the various assembled protesters who were mainly workers, students, and rioters who had started barricading as were attacked by the People’s Liberation Army (PLA) troops, is that all of them were killed. In addition, all nearby civilians who were deemed threatening as witnesses and bystanders, were also killed through rapid fire machine-guns, and with tanks running over them. These frontier army mechanized infantry units, were brought to the Square, by the PLA and they entered the Tiananmen Square at all the multiple gates of the square in order to pen in the students and the workers and crush them completely without offering any avenues or exits of escape.

The killing lasted throughout the night all around the Tiananmen square and the surrounding districts, and throughout central Beijing, and extended in the various neighborhoods radiating out to the suburbs.

Hundreds of thousands of protesters were killed, with many more thousands wounded inside and outside of Tiananmen Square, on the 3rd of June and on the 4th of June after the first civilians started to be killed on the early hours of the 3rd of June leading to the 4th of June.

There were a few more protests across China in reaction to the crackdown, but were all put down violently and exceedingly fast.

The protest leaders and the pro-democracy activists who survived the massacre, were later arrested, exiled in concentration camps, or imprisoned for long terms at the political enemies jails, or at the re-education camps, and all of the major protesters, and leaders of the student and worker movement for Democracy, were charged with violent crimes and were executed in the following months.

Zhao Ziyang was purged from General Secretary and Politburo positions and was placed under house arrest. Jiang Zemin, previously Party Secretary of Shanghai, was promoted to General Secretary and paramount leader, by Deng Xiaoping.

Western economic sanctions and arms embargoes on the People’s Republic of China
were enacted and although no precise figures exist, because of China’s denial of the Massacre — estimates vary from hundreds of thousands to twenty six thousands of dead protesters.

It is important to state that at the height of the protests, before the military’s crackdown of June 4th, there were upwards of One (1) million people assembled in the Square, and that explains the high number of casualties in this massive open air occupation of the square, when the tanks rolled in and crushed the people…

Because as the protests developed, the authorities responded with both conciliatory and hardline tactics, exposing deep divisions within the party leadership. By May, a student-led hunger strike galvanized support for the demonstrators around the country, and the protests spread to some 400 cities. Ultimately, China’s paramount leader Deng Xiaoping and other Communist Party elders believed the protests to be a political threat and resolved to use force.[14][15] The State Council declared martial law on May 20 and mobilized as many as 300,000 troops to Beijing. The troops advanced into central parts of Beijing on the city’s major thoroughfares in the early morning hours of June 4, killing both demonstrators and bystanders in the process.

The international community, human rights organizations, and political analysts condemned the Chinese government for the massacre. Western countries imposed arms embargoes on China. The Chinese government made widespread arrests of protesters and their supporters, suppressed other protests around China, expelled foreign journalists, strictly controlled coverage of the events in the domestic press, strengthened the police and internal security forces, and demoted or purged officials it deemed sympathetic to the protests. More broadly, the suppression halted the policies of liberalization in the 1980s. Considered a watershed event, the protests set the limits on political expression in China up to the present day. Its memory is widely associated with questioning the legitimacy of Communist Party rule and remains one of the most sensitive and most widely censored topics in China.

Sadly to this day, China does not want to face the Truth…

Yours,

Dr Churchill

PS:

Is it because the Communist system is so tyrannical that is afraid of telling it’s own citizens the truth about their past?

As for the fate of this lone demonstrator stopping the tanks — it has been confirmed that he was killed and placed in an unmarked grave by the Communist army’s mechanized infantry.

His remnants have been fertilizing the Tiananmen Square’s flower beds for the last 30 years to this day.

RIP brother fighter for Freedom and Democracy.

RIP courageous liberator.

RIP my brother, keeper of the undying flame of Liberty.

RIP my beacon of Hope for the Chinese people of today.

And may the soil that covers your body always be light and always may it bring about, the most fragrant flowers of that beautiful square.

And may your memory far outlast the Communist tyrants that are responsible for your death and for so much bloodshed during this awful massacre of 1989…

Yet, you should know that I am certain that you will always live in our memories and in the human book of Liberty and Democracy, for ever — long after the Chinese Communist party and it’s peons have all have bitten the dust.